+1 for having only two supported stable versions.
One as a „long term support“ branch (e.g. 2.6 at the moment)
and one „normal“ stable (eg. 3.0 atm or next 3.2)
+1 for keeping odd minor numbers for development versions.
Maybe having a monthly rolling release with latests features to have more test users would make sense.
Cheers
Uli
> Am 12.04.2019 um 01:54 schrieb Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> We currently have three active release branches: 3.0, 2.6, and 2.4. This is because we support each release branch for a set amount of time (typically 24 months after the initial .0 release) and our last three .0 releases were less than 12 months apart. However, having many active branches can sometimes cause confusion[1] and far fewer people download the "Old Old Stable" release than the "Old Stable" or "Stable" releases. Would it make sense to have only two release branches active at any given time, e.g. by adjusting our release branch lifetimes to "24 months or whenever we have two newer active branches, whichever comes first"?
>
> We've also been using odd minor numbers for development releases and even minor numbers for stable releases[2] for many years now. We don't make very many development releases and instead tend to have one or more release candidates after branch is created. Would it make sense to drop the even/odd scheme and make the next major release 3.1.0?
>
> [1] https://ask.wireshark.org/question/8433/why-are-multiple-versions-released-at-once/
> [2] https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/ReleaseNumbers
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe